Filed Date: Sept. 23, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is a habeas corpus petition filed by a Mexico national who lived in the United States for about twenty years before he was arrested by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and detained without bond.
On September 23, 2025, the petitioner, a Mexico national who entered the United States without inspection in 2006, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The petitioner was apprehended by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer during a traffic stop in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents authorizing his admission into the United States. After his arrest, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained the petitioner without bond and brought removal proceedings against him. In his petition, the petitioner argued that DHS unlawfully detained him under the mandatory detention framework of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which mandates the detention of applicants for admission to the United States if an immigration officer determines that the individual is not clearly entitled to be admitted. Because the petitioner lived in the United States for years before his arrest, he argued that his detention should instead have been governed by § 1226 of the INA, which applies to the apprehension and detention of individuals who are already present in the country and eligible for removal. § 1226 establishes a discretionary process for removal which requires a determination that detention pending removal proceedings is appropriate, and allows the court to release the individual on bond or conditional parole. The plaintiff requested that the court find his detention unlawful and order that he be released or provided with a bond hearing.
Shortly after filing his petition, on September 25, 2025, the petitioner filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.
The court conducted a status conference hearing on October 2, 2025.
On October 21, 2026, the court granted the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that because the petitioner was arrested within the country's interior and was not currently "seeking admission" at a border, the INA’s discretionary framework must apply. Consequently, the court granted the petition, ordering the government to provide the petitioner a bond hearing within seven days, or release him. The ruling further enjoined the defendants from transferring the petitioner out of the District of Minnesota until the hearing is conducted. The court additionally denied the petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order as moot. The court entered final judgment for the petitioner the following day, on October 22, 2025. 2025 WL 2976539.
The defendants appealed the court’s order issuing the writ of habeas corpus and final judgment on November 7, 2025 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
On November 17, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to expedite the appeal, which the court granted on December 12, 2025.
On March 25, 2025, after briefing and oral argument, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision granting the petition and remanded this case back to the district court for further proceedings. The majority opinion analyzed the INA’s mandatory framework, § 1225(b)(2), and found that individuals who entered illegally are "seeking admission" as long as they remain in the country without lawful status, thereby triggering mandatory detention. The court emphasized that the terms "applicant for admission" and "seeking admission" are synonymous, meaning those present without inspection are on the same legal footing as those at the border. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Ralph Erickson argued that this interpretation ignored the plain meaning of "seeking" and contradicted decades of legal tradition that distinguishes between border arrivals and long-term residents. Ultimately, the ruling expanded the government's authority to hold certain non-citizens without bond while they await removal proceedings. 2026 WL 819258.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Claire Pollard (3/28/2026)
Sofia Yoder (4/10/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71433388/parties/herrera-avila-v-bondi/
Attorney, David W.
Bayoumi, Katherine Lourdes (Minnesota)
Behr, Natalie
Casper, Benjamin
Cassler, Rebecca M.
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71433388/herrera-avila-v-bondi/
Last updated April 17, 2026, 3:09 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 23, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a Mexican national who entered the United States without inspection in 2026.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of Homeland Security
Executive Office for Immigration Review
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Other Dockets:
District of Minnesota 0:25-cv-03741
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 25-03248
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Herrera Avila v. Bondi, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47977/ (last updated 4/10/2026).